LukeH

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    410

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by LukeH

  1. It sound like the firmware isn't running. In which case flicking the switch won't put it into programming mode anymore.

    Remove the two screws, open the back and press the reset button. Then try flashing the beta firmware again. If that doesn't work, try again with the normal firmware.

  6. nickfrey

    Will an XP virtual machine (VMWare) under windows 8 work?



    I don't think so. I've tried it with Hyper-V and VirtualBox and with various USB over ethernet solutions but I haven't tried with VMWare.

    The problem is with Windows 8/8.1 loading the driver for the Flysight when the Flysight is in programming mode.

    Because the Win 8 host can't load the driver you can't pass it through to the VM. If you have some software that passes the entire USB controller through to the VM you might have a chance.

    Some sort of bootable DVD\USB stick with a different OS would probably be the easiest option.

  7. It's by suit. Each model name is assigned to a category.

    It looks like some suits may be in the wrong category and everyone knows that some manufacturers make many different suits with the same model name stitched on them ;-) so perhaps two suits with the same or similar names shouldn't be in the same category.

    Some very experienced guys are cleverly staying in the lower categories meaning that the others have no chance. Smart but not very sporting.

  9. There results are attached.

    These competition figures are skewed because of the tactics element, diving and flaring etc. It looks like he nailed the timing of the flare round 1 so the score benefits from 25 seconds of boost. On round 2 the flare was a little premature so the peak wasn't included in the scoring window.

    The sustained GR after the flare looks to be about 2.5 on round 1 and 2.2 on round 2, both of which seem a bit on the low side for a (slight) tail wind.

    [inline 14535-Chart.png]
    [inline 14600-Chart.png]

  10. Thanks.

    I was asking because many people seem to think that somewhere between 3:1 and 4:1 is readily achievable.

    A year or two ago I reckoned that 2.5-2.9 was a realistic figure, but was wondering if that has changed much.

    I've seen claims of sustained 3.1:1 and even 3.5:1, and a base jump with a mandatory 2.7:1 requirement (pretty hardcore if the skydiving world champion is only getting 2.7 with a slight tail wind)

    I guess it hasn't changed much, perhaps more people are now achieving the upper end of that range.

  13. Oh wait... you're right wingsuits have been flying up for years...
    https://vimeo.com/17074287
    :S

    It's possible to build energy in a WS by diving and flare out to a temporary low fallrate, level flight or a small climb but it requires a significant dive and flare, just like any other wing. Where is the boogie man you've invented that is denies this?

    What you are trying to portray is that the smoke trail proves a climb, it doesn't. In your above video (which has the camera below and looking up), it's even clearer that it shows a turn towards and then away from the camera.

    "Fact: Camera on level" Really? Get your eyes tested.

    There are 3 possibilities, this is a windup, you are really dumb or you're just using this to promote false info knowing it's not true. I doubt you are that dumb, so I'd guess a combination of the other two.

  14. Jeb,

    You posted before that the Recon HUD was giving you much higher speed readings than your Flysight. Without digging up the thread I think you were saying 140MPH from the goggles and 125MPH from Flysight and your feeling was that the Flysight figure was probably the correct one. What was the cause of such a big discrepancy and how has it been fixed?

    Could you describe the difference of what you are currently jumping from the standard goggles, and what further changes are they able to make, test and ship by the end of the year?

    As they won't know for a while if they have the 250 orders, it seems like a very tight time frame for development and testing...

  15. Quote


    ...and Luke, easy, man. No shot at you either. I haven't got a problem with skepticism and requiring evidence, thats healthy and rational.



    Thanks for the sentiment and I'm glad we are on the same page.

    I'm not too worried about those that try to paint me as being negative or scornful, it's easier for them to do that than stick to the facts. Some people fall for it but in the end they usually make a tit of themselves.

  16. Hi Brian,

    I thought there might be an essay from you on this.

    Quote

    The hecklers will continue to demand GPS data then challenge it and claim its too inaccurate or inapplicable, Claim it isn't and can't be happening, even long after its been filmed to exhaustion at events like these.


    As much as you like to try and put spin on things I've said... I didn't challenge the GPS data, it showed your claims were over optimistic. I didn't realise you were still bitter about that, get over it.

    Getting back to the topic at hand. These videos aren't useful in proving if there was a climb or not. That's just being objective about it, it's not rocket surgery. I feel like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

  17. Quote

    Hmmm,
    I have to admit that looks like pretty conclusive proof (of a significant gain in altitude!) in spite of all the naysayers......



    The only thing these videos are demonstrating is confirmation bias by many of the people posting.

    There are a number of factors about these clips that make it very difficult to draw conclusions as to what is happening.
    1) camera angle is not perpendicular to the line of flight.
    2) the flight line doesn't appear to be straight, it looks like they are turning right just after passing the cablecar.
    3) the smoke is sinking
    4) as The111 pointed out long lenses from far away can cause funny effects

    Gaining altitude from a flare is old news, you see canopies doing it at the DZ everyday of the week. So far any convincing evidence of it happening in a WS is after a very significant dive.

    Maybe some of the pilots were wearing flysights and we can draw some useful conclusions from the log files...

  18. I did a couple of hundred WS jump on a Stiletto 150 with one cutaway (diving canopy I couldn't recover). I think it depends on your wingloading and how predictable the openings are. I quite liked it as a WS canopy, but the loading was light, I was about 72Kg.

    I've done a few hundred more on a Katana 120 with Shadow & Vampire WSs and went through a spate of 3 cutaways in quick succession on the original line trim (it was clear there was something strange going on). Canopy was second hand with 400ish jumps at the time and the original Katana line trim. New line set with the newer line trim fixed that.

    Only modification is a crazy long bridle, and packing grommet up.

  20. Quote

    its after going head down for a few thousand feet and leveling out smoothly.


    Makes more sense now, you left that bit out.

    Quote

    Im not saying it was maintained or a max glide speed.
    anyway, im not going to try and convince people on the internet that this is possible.


    You don't have to convince anyone. Sure we all know it's possible, the record horizontal speed (average over 1,000 vertical meters) is 175mph, and that wasn't boosted by a dive before hand.
    You did say you were getting 120MPH into a 12MPH headwind when maxing out your glide (and 140MPH is easy), this is also highly unlikely.

  22. If you don't have a Fly-Sight where are you seeing the speeds? They just don't seem right for any suit that is being flown to maximize glide, especially as you are of average height and weight.

    Previous claims that the suit was "fast" and flies at 120mph turned out to be peak value after a dive trading altitude and glide for temporary speed increase. This makes 140mph tough to believe.

  23. Quote

    140 isnt hard to achieve. last balloon jump i was getting 120 maxing out my glide with a 10mph head wind. not sure how strong the winds were closer to the ground but at 4000 the balloon was movin away from the launch point (where i was flying to) at 12mph.



    The average speed for Apache and Apache X (i don't know if there's a difference between the two?) recorded in the Distance Challenge (so when flown for good GR) on PPC is 178kph (111mph).

    Most of these runs are done downwind so wind corrected forward speed of the suit is more likely to be lower than that.

    What was your glide when you were getting 120MPH?

  25. Quote

    Half the reason this amuses me as much as it does is specifically because so many regard the whole thing as impossible with such conviction that they will hold to that opinion disregarding any amount of redundant evidence I can produce.



    I really didn't want to reply again after the last round of childish insults you slung, but you presist in trying to twist what I said so I'll persist in correcting you. I NEVER said a climb was not possible, I don't think anyone else did either.

    A dive can be used to increase airspeed and produce a planeout. Without getting into the specifics obviously with enough of a dive, a climb should be possible. How many times do I have to repeat that before you stop whinging that I'm calling you a liar? (I NEVER said that either.)

    You own GPS tracks clearly show the dives, and now you are making a semantic argument about a "dive" dive. Really? WTF!
    Quote

    it does not require an actual "dive" dive to do this. Just let the nose drop a little and pile on some speed



    Get over yourself and move on, and please stop trying to put words in my posts that aren't there, you are only making yourself look silly.